TWO RECENT disputes in literary property rights have highlighted an erosion of free speech not only for fiction writers -- but for all Americans.

An Atlanta judge has banned the publication of "The Wind Done Gone," by Alice Randall. The novel parodies Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind."

Since its publication in 1936, there have been hundreds of parodies, from Mad Magazine to the "Carol Burnett Show" to the Internet humor sites of today. This is the first time, however, that Mitchell's estate has succeeded in manipulating the law into the incorrect posture that a parody constitutes theft.

The estate, which benefits from lucrative licensing agreements, is essentially a corporate enterprise, and it has established the right of a corporation to suppress a book. This is not only a dangerous erosion of free speech, but an indication of where the real power in America lies.

While it is permissible for the writers of "That's My Bush!" to satirize the president, it is against the law to satirize Scarlett O'Hara -- a fictional person -- because then you are abusing the only people who matter in America, those who own commercial rights to a popular product.

The same week of the Atlanta ruling, another story about literary theft received national, if less prominent, headlines. "The Persia Cafe," a first novel by Melany Neilson, which received wide praise when it was published in February, was discovered to contain several passages that were lifted either verbatim or in close paraphrase from "The Bean Trees" by Barbara Kingsolver.

Thomas Dunne/St. Martin's, the publisher of Neilson's novel, says that future editions will be changed, but has refused to withdraw the book from stores.

The literary mugging of Kingsolver, unlike the Scarlett O'Hara case, is a genuine literary rip-off, but Corporate America does not consider it a crime. Neither Parade magazine nor any of the cable shopping channels is offering dolls and commemorative plates based on Kingsolver's characters. Because no such licensing agreements have been violated, her publisher, HarperCollins, is unlikely to sue. Kingsolver will not enjoy redress, even though her right to her words was abridged by the corporation that stole them.

In a free and rational America, Randall would be allowed to publish her satire of Tara, and Thomas Dunne/St. Martin's would be obligated to pay Kingsolver for the unauthorized use of her words. But we do not live in a nation where disputes regarding the written word are adjudicated by the conventions of the world of letters.

Instead, we live in a country where free speech belongs to corporations, and where a citizen had better not impinge on that right. We live in a country where a citizen's right to speak is relative, depending upon the economic pull of that citizen. The founding fathers, when they proposed the First Amendment, based their ideas on the supposition that a threat to speech could come only from the government. But this is a terrible new day, and we will soon need an amendment to prevent businesses from dictating which of our words we do and do not own.

Without such protection, we will continue to live in a nation where Scarlett O'Hara has more rights than real people.